• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Ron Brown's head wound

If it's in there, I missed it. Given the masses of convoluted text in those links, I think it excusable. So please apologize for calling me a liar. :D

How about just answering the question as asked right here. Why are you avoiding it? :D

Indeed, the reply he did give seems to have taken considerably more effort than would have been required to simply answer the question; all he had to do was type a single number between 1 and 7 (and add a short explanation if the choice was 7). I wonder why he chose to obfuscate and spam you with a multitude of links to numerous threads, each of which is no doubt quite extensive, and expect you to sift through them to find an answer to a very simple and straightforward question.

Isn't there a fallacy named for this type of argument? BAC seems to employ it quite often :D
 
Say, BAC, while we're on the subject of people running from threads, were you ever going to get around to answering any of the questions left for you in the "NBC: network of godless progressives" thread?

Don't you think that's a tad off topic here?

The subject is putting people connected with Clinton era criminal activities into positions of power in the Obama administration.

Why don't you address that topic instead of trying to derail it?
 
If it's in there, I missed it.

Then you didn't look very hard because it's discussed in numerous places.

Given the masses of convoluted text in those links, I think it excusable.

Of course there are masses of text because there are mountains of data to discuss. (Or at least for people like you to ignore.)

And the text isn't convoluted. The logic is quite simple to follow. Perhaps your problem lies somewhere else? :rolleyes:

I tell you what? Why don't you learn to use your browser's search function when examining those threads.

Try finding the word "scenario", for example. That alone will give you plenty of posts to read on the questions you raised. ;)
 
Last edited:
Don't you think that's a tad off topic here?

The subject is putting people connected with Clinton era criminal activities into positions of power in the Obama administration.

Why don't you address that topic instead of trying to derail it?

Oh good! So why did every single republican vote yes?
 
Then you didn't look very hard because it's discussed in numerous places.



Of course there are masses of text because there are mountains of data to discuss. (Or at least for people like you to ignore.)

And the text isn't convoluted. The logic is quite simple to follow. Perhaps your problem lies somewhere else? :rolleyes:

I tell you what? Why don't you learn to use your browser's search function when examining those threads.

Try finding the word "scenario", for example. That alone will give you plenty of posts to read on the questions you raised. ;)
If it's so simple why can't you just answer it here? :D
 
And if you have questions after reading them, then ask me them on those threads where they belong, and I'll be happy to respond. But I'm betting you won't, Ladewig. Just as you won't want to discuss the facts in the Foster case either (say here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140659&page=11 ). :D

From one of the other threads:

How do we actually know that Brown boarded the flight? I'm not saying he didn't (he clearly did), but do you know that the passenger manifest for the flight went missing? So we really don't know for sure who was on board that plane that day.

And guess what, Brown wasn't originally scheduled to be on that trade mission. At least that's according to sworn testimony by Nolanda Hill, a Brown confidante and business partner. She swore that he got ordered to join the trade mission after a meeting with Bill Clinton in which he told Clinton that he wouldn't go down alone in the matters where a special prosecutor was about to indict him. Chinagate and campaign finance violation related matters. Matters in which his son and wife had already been indicted. According to her testimony, he asked Clinton to shut down the prosecutor and Clinton said he couldn't. He then told Clinton he was prepared to turn state's evidence to save himself and his family. And after she testified to that effect, the Clinton's DOJ charged her with a tax evasion crime to shut her up. They never did present anything that actually challenged what she claimed about the Brown matter. Curious, huh?

And how about who was not on the flight? Remember Ira Sockowitz? He's the Commerce Department lead man who reported back to Christopher Warren that there were two survivors (rather than the one the government admitted). It turns out he was supposed to have been on the flight but "missed it" for some unspecified reason. Yet he got to the crash site fast enough to be the point man for Commerce. And, by the way, Ira Sockowitz was an associate of John Huang (a known spy and associate of Brown) and is himself implicated in illegally obtaining secret China related documents while at Commerce (another matter never pursued by the RENO DOJ). Brown was just surrounded with fine outstanding folks, wasn't he.



About that destination. Brown left on the trip planning to meet Croatian president Franco Tudjman in Zagreb, but was then informed that the meeting site had been changed to Dubrovnik. Curiously, Tudjman never even bothered to go to Dubrovnik until after Brown's death when Tudjman posthumously honored Brown with a distinguished national award for his efforts to strengthen ties between Croatia and the United States. At least he didn't joke and laugh like Clinton did at Brown's funeral. Was Tudjman's cooperation in this matter rewarded? Perhaps. Three months later Clinton sent another "trade mission" to Croatia and it was judged to be "very" successful. About 7 months after Brown died and a week after Clinton's re-election, Tudjman traveled to Walter Reed Hospital in Washington for cancer treatments ... even though Tudjman had been afraid to travel due to war crimes allegation by the Hague. And by the way, it was his son, Miroslav, who worked in state security who investigated the death of the Dubrovnik maintenance chief in charge of the portable beacon and who ruled it a suicide.

Wheels within wheels.



Why do you assume a suicide?

Remember, we don't really know who was on the plane that day. Perhaps someone whose body wasn't found? Someone who might have disabled the aircraft's communication? That at least would explain losing contact when the plane was still 5 minutes from the mountain. Perhaps that person shot Brown and then left the plane? Or didn't shoot Brown but left the plane? You know that the rear door of the wreckage was found open. Couldn't someone parachute out an open door? Is it only coincidence that the search initially focused on the ocean (where wreckage was reportedly seen but nothing found)?

You have to admit that the delay to search the ocean would have helped a cleanup crew arrive on the scene ahead of rescuers to make sure Brown was dead.

Why would a cleanup crew use a gun to kill him? Wouldn't bashing his head with a rock, cutting his throat with a jagged piece of wreckage, snapping his neck,or any one of a half dozen other methods been infinitely preferable to shooting him in the head?
 
"Poisoning The Well"

A person can be a truther, and still not be wrong about anything else.

And it's just plain factually wrong. A person rejecting this CT is actually less like a Truther than the person pushing this CT.
 
So we're not going to get a simple straight answer to post #48?

This thread isn't specifically about Brown. And I don't want it thrown in the CT forum just because you are too lazy to actually go read the threads on Brown that I pointed you to, Spindrift. If you want to discuss Brown from a point rooted in knowledge rather than ignorance, why don't you go read the threads I pointed you too. They aren't that long. Or just browse for posts with the word "scenario" in them. That will save some of your *precious* time. And if you don't think those posts address the questions you raised in a rational manner, then tell me why on those threads. I'll see your posts and respond there.

But I bet you don't. Because you aren't really interested in honest discussion. You're just trying the usual RonBrownTruther tactics. :D
 
From one of the other threads:

I'll say the same to you Ladewig. If you want to post a question about Brown or something I said about Brown, post it on one of those threads I linked above. Post it on the thread you got what you quoted from. Then I will respond there. Because then we can discuss your comment in light all that was previously posted and sourced ... rather than have to start all over. Because then it will be clear to everyone just how dishonest and Truther-like you are in asking your question in the first place.
 
A person rejecting this CT is actually less like a Truther than the person pushing this CT.

LOL!

Just remember, folks, that JTJ once wrote "I'm not trying to defend the Clintons in any way". :rolleyes:

And JTJ, if you really want to discuss the characteristics of a truther, with regards to the Brown (or Foster) allegations, why don't you respond to the points I made in these two posts on a thread actually discussing Brown:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6562692&postcount=69

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6562789&postcount=71

Or, if that's not to your taste, respond to one of these even more complete comparisons I made between 9/11Truthers and those who dismiss the Vince Foster allegations (since afterall, the exact same list applies to those who dismiss the Ron Brown allegations out of hand):

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6405371&postcount=490

or

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7203967&postcount=5

:D
 
LOL!

Just remember, folks, that JTJ once wrote "I'm not trying to defend the Clintons in any way". :rolleyes:

And JTJ, if you really want to discuss the characteristics of a truther, with regards to the Brown (or Foster) allegations, why don't you respond to the points I made in these two posts on a thread actually discussing Brown:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6562692&postcount=69

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6562789&postcount=71

Or, if that's not to your taste, respond to one of these even more complete comparisons I made between 9/11Truthers and those who dismiss the Vince Foster allegations (since afterall, the exact same list applies to those who dismiss the Ron Brown allegations out of hand):

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6405371&postcount=490

or

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7203967&postcount=5

:D

You're not even close to being on topic. You started a thread about a CT involving Panetta.
 
You're not even close to being on topic. You started a thread about a CT involving Panetta.

I stated nothing but fact regarding Panetta in the OP post. Facts that you've studiously avoided challenging directly, I see. And the OP post specifically pointed out Panetta's involvement in the Brown matter … in fact, in events that occurred not too long before Brown's death. Events that might relate to motivation for having him murdered. If Brown was murdered because he was about to turn state's evidence, then it's only natural to wonder if Panetta was in any way involved. Thus discussing Brown, when you claim this is just a CT about Panetta, is indeed on topic.

So my challenge to you remains. If you think a person rejecting the Brown allegations regarding Panetta is displaying fewer truther characteristics than one promoting it (that is what you claimed above), then specifically comparing 911Truther characteristics to those rejecting the Brown allegation is indeed on topic. And one can't help but notice that now that you've opined on that topic you are now looking for cover to avoid discussing it. :D
 
So my challenge to you remains. If you think a person rejecting the Brown allegations regarding Panetta is displaying fewer truther characteristics than one promoting it (that is what you claimed above), then specifically comparing 911Truther characteristics to those rejecting the Brown allegation is indeed on topic. And one can't help but notice that now that you've opined on that topic you are now looking for cover to avoid discussing it. :D

Claiming that Brown was murdered is quite similar to calling 9/11 an inside job. There is no evidence that he was murdered, unless someone actually did tamper with the air control radio beacon as some have alleged, but then, there were a lot of people doing strange things hostile to America in that region.

I doubt that there are any hit men willing to shot a man in the back of the head and then go down with the aircraft. Seems you would have to have more than one body with fatal bullet holes as well.

It makes as much sense as Judy Woo-woo's space case discombobulator gun.
 
why don't you respond to the points I made in these two posts on a thread actually discussing Brown:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6562692&postcount=69

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6562789&postcount=71

Or, if that's not to your taste, respond to one of these even more complete comparisons I made between 9/11Truthers and those who dismiss the Vince Foster allegations (since afterall, the exact same list applies to those who dismiss the Ron Brown allegations out of hand):

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6405371&postcount=490

or

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7203967&postcount=5

See post number 12 of this thread.

So this Panetta CT---it involves 100% of Senate Republicans too?
 
Isn't there a fallacy named for this type of argument? BAC seems to employ it quite often :D

Probably not. But, when I was in the Army, somebody in nearly every orderly room or S-3 office would decorate their work areas by posting the slogan:"If you can't blind them with your brilliance, baffle them with your ********."

Kind of murky in here, don'tcha think?
 
BAC:

Even if Ron Brown had a head wound that looked like a bullet wound, that doesn't mean it was caused by a bullet. It could have been cause by a piece of the plane. 35 people died in that plane crash.
 

Back
Top Bottom